Anne Arundel County Adult Drug Court (District Court) Process Evaluation

Transcription

1 Anne Arundel County Adult Drug Court (District Court) Process Evaluation FINAL REPORT Submitted to: Maryland Judiciary, Office of Problem-Solving Courts Annapolis, Maryland Submitted by: NPC Research Portland, Oregon March SW Macadam Ave., Suite 530 Portland, OR (503)

2 Anne Arundel County Adult Drug Court (District Court) Process Evaluation FINAL REPORT Research Team Dave Crumpton, M.P.A., Project Director Juliette R. Mackin, Ph.D., Process Study Manager Judy M. Weller, B.S., & Robert Linhares, M.A., Process Study Coordinators Shannon M. Carey, Ph.D., Consultant on Drug Court Research Michael W. Finigan, Ph.D., Consultant on Drug Court Research For questions about this report or project, please contact Juliette Mackin at (503) x 114 or mackin@npcresearch.com. March 2007 Informing policy, improving programs Please visit to learn about the staff and services of NPC Research.

3 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This report was made possible by the good work, support, and participation of so many people and organizations including: Frank Broccolina, State of Maryland Court Administrator Gray Barton, Executive Director, and Jennifer Moore, Deputy Director, Maryland Office of Problem-Solving Courts Judges Jamey H. Weitzman, Chair, Maryland Drug Treatment Court Commission, and Kathleen G. Cox, Vice Chair, Drug Treatment Court Commission Judge James Dryden, for his generous contributions of time and input to this evaluation Janet Ward, Anne Arundel County Adult Drug Court (District Court) Coordinator; and the staff at the Anne Arundel County Adult Drug Court (District Court), including judicial/legal, juvenile justice, treatment professionals and youth services providers who participated in key stakeholder interviews Anne Arundel County Adult Drug Court (District Court) participants who provided the evaluation team with their unique perspective on the program Support staff at NPC Research, Charley Korns and Travis Ward

4 TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY...I BACKGROUND... 1 METHODS... 2 Site Visits... 2 Key Informant Interviews... 2 Focus Groups and Participant Interviews... 2 Document Review... 2 ANNE ARUNDEL COUNTY ADULT DRUG COURT (DISTRICT COURT) PROCESS DESCRIPTION... 3 Implementation... 3 Capacity and Enrollment... 3 Drug Court Goals... 3 AACADC District Program Eligibility... 3 Incentives for Offenders to Enter (and Complete) the AACADC District Program... 5 Drug Court Program Phases...5 Phase I (6 weeks)... 6 Phase II (8 weeks)... 6 Phase III (12 weeks)... 6 Phase IV (12 weeks)... 7 Requirements to Change Phase... 7 Treatment Overview... 7 Other Drug Court Services... 8 Team Meetings... 8 Provider and Team Communication with Court... 8 Drug Court Reviews... 8 The Drug Court Team... 9 Drug Court Team Training Treatment Costs Drug Testing Rewards and Sanctions Rewards Sanctions Unsuccessful Completion (Termination) Graduation i

5 Data Collected by the Drug Court for Tracking and Evaluation Purposes Drug Court Funding ANNE ARUNDEL COUNTY ADULT DRUG COURT (DISTRICT COURT) COMPARED TO 10 KEY COMPONENTS OF DRUG COURTS Participant Monitoring and Supervision ANNE ARUNDEL COUNTY ADULT DRUG COURT (DISTRICT COURT): A SYSTEMS FRAMEWORK FOR PROGRAM IMPROVEMENT Community Level Summary of community level recommendations Agency Level Summary of agency level recommendations Program Level Summary of program level recommendations SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS REFERENCES APPENDIX A: PARTICIPANT FEEDBACK FROM FOCUS GROUP AND INTERVIEWS APPENDIX B: DRUG COURT TYPOLOGY INTERVIEW GUIDE ii

6 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY D rug treatment courts are one of the fastest growing programs designed to reduce drug abuse and criminality in non-violent offenders in the United States. The first drug court was implemented in Miami, Florida, in As of 2006, there were at least 1,597 adult and juvenile drug courts operating in all 50 states, as well as the District of Columbia, Northern Marina Islands, Puerto Rico, and Guam (BJA, 2006). Drug courts use the coercive authority of the criminal justice system to offer treatment to non-violent addicts in lieu of incarceration. This model of linking the resources of the criminal justice system and substance treatment programs has proven to be effective for increasing treatment participation and decreasing criminal recidivism. Frank R. Weathersbee, State s Attorney for Anne Arundel County, was instrumental in starting the Anne Arundel County Adult Drug Court (District Court) [AACADC District] program, which began in Judge Joseph Manck was appointed the first Drug Court Judge. In 1998, he was replaced by Judge James Dryden, who had been the backup judge during the program s first year. Judge Dryden continues to be the Drug Court Judge today. The AACADC District enrolled 176 participants from January through June A total of 1,122 people have been enrolled since the program began in 1997, and 610 have graduated. There are four case managers, each managing between 30 and 40 people. Capacity increased from 145 to approximately 160 participants in August 2006, when the fourth case manager was hired. Also in 2006, AACADC District received funding for a fifth case manager, who will be hired in Fall In 2001, NPC Research ( NPC ), under contract with the Administrative Office of the Courts of the State of Maryland, began cost studies of adult drug courts in Baltimore City and Anne Arundel County, Maryland. These studies were completed in Subsequently, NPC was hired to perform evaluations on 5 adult and 10 juvenile drug courts in Maryland, one of which is the AACADC District. This report contains the process evaluation for the AACADC District Court program. Information was acquired for this process evaluation from several sources, including observations of court reviews and team meetings during site visits, key informant interviews, focus groups, and the drug court database. The methods used to gather this information from each source are described in detail in the main report. According to its Procedures Manual, AACADC District s program goals are to: 1. Reduce crime and recidivism 2. Enhance community safety 3. Reduce the impact of drug cases on criminal justice resources 4. Reduce substance use 5. Enable drug court participants to become responsible and productive members of the community Process Evaluation Results Using the 10 Key Components of Drug Courts (as described by the National Association of Drug Court Professionals in 1997) as a framework, NPC examined the practices of the AACADC District program. The Anne Arundel County Adult Drug Court (District Court) fulfills many of the 10 key components through its current policies and structure. It integrates alcohol and other drug treatment services with justice system case processing, uses a non-adversarial approach I

7 between prosecution and defense counsel, provides a continuum of treatment services, uses frequent alcohol/drug testing to monitor abstinence, has a consistent structure for responding to participant compliance, has had a continuously sitting judge for many years, and has worked to develop partnerships with public and private community agencies and organizations. There are several areas in which the AACADC District should and can make program improvements. The program should consider analyzing the time between identification of participants and getting them into drug court. It should also consider working to reduce barriers to success for drug court participants (including transportation, childcare, and employment schedules) by identifying or developing community resources or increasing program flexibility. As the State implements its new SMART Management Information System (MIS), the program will be able to utilize electronic management information for program monitoring and evaluation purposes. The program should consider increasing frequency of contact between participants and the judge. Finally, AACADC District should encourage/support additional training for team members. Interpretation of the findings of this process evaluation is provided in an analytic framework that distinguishes among community, agency, and program level issues. Understanding the needs of drug court participants and the larger community, and the impacts of a person s environment on her/his behavior is crucial to establishing a program that best serves the population. Bringing the partner agencies to the table and ensuring consistent and thorough communication and coordinated planning will also enhance program quality. Finally, establishing consistent operational guidelines will provide an efficient and effective structure for service delivery. SUMMARY OF COMMUNITY LEVEL RECOMMENDATIONS The drug court team should continue discussing possible community connections, resources, and ideas for generating outside support in order to enhance the program and to be responsive to changes in the environment and participant needs. AACADC District should continue to be open to any new opportunities for accessing additional psychiatric services in order to address the unmet needs of some program participants. Participants requested additional flexibility in the times and days of the week that drug court reviews occur due to other demands on their time (e.g., employment and family responsibilities). AACADC District already offers flexibility in the days and times that participants are asked to attend court sessions. Following the lead of some other drug courts, it may be worth considering holding court sessions in the evening or other off-hours to better meet the needs of participants who work during weekdays. Participants indicated that the program can be a financial burden because some of the services from supporting agencies require payment. The AACADC District offers an Offender Treatment Fund that participants can access if they do not have health insurance. In addition, the program has worked out sliding scales and payment plans for participants and has written grants to cover treatment costs. The program should ensure that participants are aware of all the support and funding options and continue to assist them in taking advantage of these opportunities. In addition, the program should continue to work with community partners to help the associated agencies identify other resources and strategies that allow them to provide services at reduced fees for participants who find those II

8 fees to be a barrier to successful participation. The program should continue to provide and ensure participants are aware of transportation assistance or support to drug court participants who do not have private vehicles. This will help maximize participant opportunities to be successful in the program. In addition to the current practices of providing bus tokens and cab vouchers, support could include coordinating required appointments so that they occur on the same day or in the same location. The program leadership could also consider discussing with community providers options such as ridesharing programs, volunteer drivers, or vehicle sharing programs. SUMMARY OF AGENCY LEVEL RECOMMENDATIONS The program should continue to monitor communication between the judge and other team members to ensure that the structure provides adequate mechanisms for information sharing. One of the key components of drug courts is to identify potential participants early and place them promptly in the drug court program. Since 3 weeks from arrest to entry is pushing the limits of what should be considered as promptly placed, the AACADC District partner agencies should monitor the time from identification to drug court entry to ensure this time period does not widen, and analyze where additional efficiencies may be possible. Discussions among members of the drug court team regarding how the timeline can be shortened may be in order. Aftercare is a clinical best practice for supporting individuals in their transition to a drug-free lifestyle. AACADC District should consider requiring a minimal aftercare component or establish a policy for drug court staff to follow up on and encourage participants to participate in aftercare. Discussions need to occur regarding agency roles and responsibilities and how the program would facilitate coordination of this service within or outside of the judicial context. SUMMARY OF PROGRAM LEVEL RECOMMENDATIONS Electronic drug court records facilitate program monitoring and evaluation, and have been used successfully in some drug court programs. To this end, the program should consider using the State s new management information system (SMART) when it becomes available. The drug court team should continue to accumulate and analyze data about the drug court and its participants so they can use it for program reviews and planning. This could include informing the team about the types of participants who are most and least successful in this program. The program leadership should conduct an outcome study in the future to follow up on the 2003 cost study. The new evaluation should consider program effectiveness in light of continuing program maturation and the application of program improvements. The program should continue to ensure that all drug court staff receive training, both about drug courts in general and specific to their role in the program. They should also ensure that all staff have opportunities for refresher training and access to updated information in order to stay current in the field. The drug court team should consider the optimal program dosage and intensity required to maximize accountability and oversight, while promoting successful participation. It is important to maintain the positive aspects of frequent monitoring without creating an undue burden on participants. III

9 BACKGROUND I n the past 17 years, one of the most dramatic developments in the movement to reduce substance abuse among the U.S. criminal justice population has been the spread of drug courts across the country. The first drug court was implemented in Florida, in There are now at least 1,597 adult and juvenile drug courts operating in all 50 states, as well as the District of Columbia, Northern Marina Islands, Puerto Rico, and Guam (BJA, 2006). Drug courts are designed to guide offenders identified as drug-addicted into treatment that will reduce drug dependence and improve the quality of life for the offenders and their families. Benefits to society take the form of reductions in crime committed by drug court participants, resulting in reduced costs to taxpayers and increased public safety. In the typical drug court program, participants are closely supervised by a judge who is supported by a team of agency representatives who operate outside their traditional roles. The team typically includes a drug court coordinator, addiction treatment providers, district/state s attorneys, public defenders, law enforcement officers, and parole and probation officers who work together to provide needed services to drug court participants. District/state s attorneys and public defenders hold their usual adversarial positions in abeyance in order to support the treatment and supervision needs of program participants. Drug court programs can be viewed as blending resources, expertise, and interests of a variety of jurisdictions and agencies. Drug courts have been shown to be effective in reducing recidivism (GAO, 2005) and in reducing taxpayer costs due to positive outcomes for drug court participants (Carey & Finigan, 2003; Carey, Finigan, Waller, Lucas, & Crumpton, 2005). Some drug courts have even been shown to cost less to operate than processing offenders through traditional ( business-as-usual ) court processes (Carey & Finigan, 2003; Crumpton, Brekhus, Weller, & Finigan, 2004; Carey et al., 2005). From 2001 to 2003, NPC, under contract with the Administrative Office of the Courts of the State of Maryland, conducted a cost study of adult drug courts in Baltimore City and Anne Arundel County, Maryland. Subsequently, NPC was hired to perform evaluations on 5 adult and 10 juvenile drug courts in Maryland, one of which is a process evaluation of Anne Arundel County s Adult Drug Court (District Court) [AACADC District]. This report contains the process evaluation for the AACADC District performed by NPC. The first section of the report is a description of the methods used to perform this process evaluation, including site visits and key stakeholder interviews. The second section of this report contains the evaluation, including a detailed description of the drug court s process. 1

10 METHODS I nformation was acquired for the process evaluation from several sources: observations of court reviews and team meetings during site visits, key informant interviews, focus groups 1 and the drug court database (an Excel spreadsheet program that contains participant-specific information). The methods used to gather this information from each source are described below. Once this information was gathered, a detailed process description was written and sent to the Anne Arundel County Adult Drug Court (District Court) for feedback and corrections. Site Visits NPC evaluation staff traveled to Annapolis, Maryland, in July 2006, to observe an Anne Arundel Adult Drug Court (District Court) review, conduct a focus group of one current participant and one program graduate, and interview two drug court participants (both current and a graduate). These activities gave the researchers firsthand knowledge of the structure, procedures, and routines of the program. Key Informant Interviews Key informant interviews were a critical component of the process study. NPC staff interviewed seven individuals involved in the drug court, including the Drug Court Coordinator, Judge, Assistant State s Attorney, Assistant Public Defender, Case Manager, House Arrest Counselor, and the Drug Court Paralegal with the State s Attorney s Office. NPC has designed and extensively utilized a Drug Court Typology Interview Guide 2, 1 See Appendix A for summary of participant interviews and focus group responses. 2 Under a grant from the Bureau of Justice Assistance and the Administrative Office of the Courts of the State of California. See Appendix B for Typology description. which provides a consistent method for collecting structure and process information from drug courts. In the interest of making this evaluation reflect local circumstances, this guide was modified to fit the purposes of this evaluation and of this particular drug court. The information gathered through the use of this guide assisted the evaluation team in focusing on the most significant and unique characteristics of the AACADC District. For the process interviews, key individuals involved with the AACADC District were asked the questions in the Typology Interview Guide most relevant to their roles in the program. Focus Groups and Participant Interviews NPC s researchers conducted a focus group at the AACADC District with one current participant and one graduate. They also conducted in-person interviews with one participant and one graduate. The focus group and interviews allowed the current and former participants to share with the evaluators their experiences and perceptions about the drug court process. Document Review The evaluation team reviewed the Anne Arundel Adult Drug Court (District Court) Procedures Manual, which, in addition to a description of the drug court s process and procedures, included copies of agreements, forms, and other information used in the operation of the drug court. Review of this documentation helped to further the evaluation team s understanding of the drug court s operations and practices. 2

11 ANNE ARUNDEL COUNTY ADULT DRUG COURT (DISTRICT COURT) PROCESS DESCRIPTION T he information that supports the process description was collected from interviews, a focus group, observation of the AACADC District, and the drug court s Procedures Manual. The majority of the information was gathered from oneon-one key stakeholder interviews. The evaluators have attempted to represent the information as it was provided. Implementation Frank R. Weathersbee, State s Attorney for Anne Arundel County, was instrumental in starting the AACADC District program, which began in Judge Joseph Manck was appointed the first Drug Court Judge. In 1998, he was replaced by Judge James Dryden, who had been the backup judge during the program s first year. Judge Dryden continues to be the Drug Court Judge today. Capacity and Enrollment A total of 1,122 people were enrolled in AACADC District since the program began in 1997, through June 30, Of these participants, 610 have graduated. From January 1 to June 30, 2006, 176 participants were enrolled in AACADC District. Of those 176 participants, 70% were male and 30% were female; 70% were White, 29% were African American, and 1% were Latino. As reported in the U.S. Census Bureau's 2000 Census, the population of Anne Arundel County is 80% White (not Hispanic/Latino), 14% African American, and 3% Hispanic/Latino. The program s four case managers each manage a caseload of 30 to 40 people. Program capacity increased from 145 to approximately 160 participants, when the fourth case manager was hired in August Further, in 2006, AACADC District received funding for a fifth case manager, who will be hired in Fall Drug Court Goals According to its Procedures Manual, AACADC District s program goals are to: 1. Reduce crime and recidivism 2. Enhance community safety 3. Reduce the impact of drug cases on criminal justice resources 4. Reduce substance use 5. Enable drug court participants to become responsible and productive members of the community AACADC District Program Eligibility Criminal charges that qualify a participant for drug court include theft, possession of controlled substances, and prostitution. The Anne Arundel County District Court is a misdemeanor court, but it can also accept individuals charged with felony theft. However, individuals with a felony drug charge are not allowed to participate in the AACADC District program. Participants entering the AACADC District must meet the following criteria: The charge cannot be a first offense, unless it is a theft or prostitution charge. For first offenses that are for possession, the offenders are sent to the County s drug diversion program. Otherwise, in order to be eligible for drug court, charges must be at least the second offense. Individuals can have no other pending charges prior to entering AACADC 3

12 District, unless those charges can be incorporated into the main charge that brought them to drug court. For example, possession of marijuana and an outstanding shoplifting charge may be combined. However, if the pending charge is a felony, it cannot be incorporated. If individuals have a pending charge in another county, but it was resolved and they come back to Anne Arundel County for trial, they may then be considered for drug court. This resolution (in the other county s court) could occur because cases come to trial and there is not enough evidence to convict, or they go to trial and defendants do not have extensive criminal histories. In such cases they go on the stet docket 3, or individuals may be given findings of Probation Before Judgment (PBJ). AACADC District will never roll charges from other counties into its program. Must be residents of Anne Arundel County. Must have histories of drug or alcohol abuse. (Drug and alcohol assessments are completed when prospective participants come in for the preliminary inquiries on Tuesdays.) Cannot have past convictions for violent crimes (murder, rape, etc.). Originally, the AACADC District barred anyone who was still on probation. However, the program gradually began to admit individuals who were on probation, and those numbers have increased over the last 2 years. Such individuals may be admitted to drug court as long as the judge who placed them on probation is willing to allow them to be supervised by the drug court program. 3 Stet docket: The case is placed on an inactive status for a period of time, provided that the defendants, or both parties, agree to abide by certain conditions, after which the case will be dismissed. If the defendant does not abide by those conditions, the case may be set for trial. The step-by-step process for persons entering AACADC District begins with an arrest. The responsible law enforcement officers bring the arrested individuals before Commissioners, who determine probable cause of a crime, and the arrested individuals are formally charged. Commissioners, who are judicial officers, consult a list of offenses acceptable for drug court acceptance. To eliminate individuals who do not meet the drug court s criteria for admission, an Assistant State s Attorney performs cursory checks of the subjects criminal records, reviewing relevant background information. Prospective participants then receive a pamphlet concerning how they may qualify for the drug court program. Commissioners set charges for preliminary inquiries according to a schedule, generally 3 to 4 weeks later. The subjects files then go to the Court Clerk s office where court staff members enter the cases into their computers for the date when the cases will appear for preliminary inquiries. The State s Attorney s Office receives copies of charges, completes thorough criminal background checks on candidate participants, and prepares cases for them. Case information is provided to the paralegal for the State s Attorney s Office, who determines eligibility, interviews prospective participants, and then informs them as to whether they are eligible for the program. During preliminary inquiries, the paralegal provides the court with statements of cases informing the court whether individuals are eligible for the diversion program or whether they have accepted or declined admission to drug court. Participants may also enter drug court if pending charges (other than those charges that qualified them for drug court) are resolved, and they return for trial. Assistant State s Attorneys provide this information to the paralegal, who then decides whether the individuals are eligible for AACADC District. 4

13 By the time preliminary eligibility screenings are completed, if individuals indicate interest in the program, they are assessed for clinical appropriateness by Anne Arundel County Health Department staff. When potential participants are found to be clinically and legally appropriate for drug court, program entry is offered to them. Those who accept entry into the program are required to plead guilty to the crimes that precipitated this process (this happens at the preliminary inquiry), and agreements among the State s Attorney s Office, the defendant, and the judge are signed. If defendants are represented by private counsel, those attorneys will also sign the agreements. Since drug court participants plead guilty prior to program entry, they are not placed on probation throughout their participation in the program. This means that they typically do not report to Maryland Parole and Probation agents. After pleas are entered on behalf of the prospective participants, they are assigned to Clinical Care Monitors (CCM) and are informed of AACADC District rules and requirements regarding participation. New participants return to court 2 weeks from the date of inquiry, to demonstrate whether they are on track or if any adjustments need to be made. Adjustments may include changes in treatment plans and/or scheduling. For example, during the first 2 weeks, it may be determined that the prospective participants need inpatient treatment or detoxification treatment, or there are mental health issues which need to be addressed. After this court date, participants will be expected to return to drug court every 3 weeks. The interview respondents reported that the length of time from arrest to entrance into the drug court program is typically 3 weeks. Incentives for Offenders to Enter (and Complete) the AACADC District Program The AACADC District is a post-plea program. Depending on participants past records, they may receive Probation Before Judgment (PBJ) findings after successfully completing the program. This means that there will be no guilty designations appearing on their records. Or, if their records contain more extensive criminal histories or they brought more serious charges to drug court, they may receive a suspended sentence from the court, which means that the offenders will not be incarcerated. Participants who have three or more past adjudicated charges, including violation of probation, may not be eligible to receive a PBJ after completing drug court. These determinations are made on an individual basis. Generally, if participants have done well enough to graduate, then they will probably receive a PBJ finding for a qualifying case. However, if Assistant State s Attorneys think that offender criminal histories are too extensive, they will probably receive suspended sentences after graduating from AACADC District. About 90-95% of the people who graduate from drug court receive PBJ findings. Further incentives for program entry and graduation for offenders include: Staying out of jail Opportunities to change destructive behaviors and live productive lives Drug Court Program Phases The AACADC District program has four phases lasting from 6 to 12 weeks each. Drug court participants see private treatment providers for a minimum of 26 weeks, and County Health Department counselors throughout their participation in drug court (a minimum of 1 year). At the end of 6 months, 5

14 if they consistently maintain negative drug tests (urinalyses [UAs]), they are no longer required to participate in private treatment. In this case, for the next 45 days they will receive random UAs and County Health Department treatment. Drug assessments used by Clinical Case Managers (CCMs) include rapid UAs, oral tests, and full drug screens. Program staff members are considering future use of ETG (a test that detects alcohol for up to 4 days after consumption), as well. Currently, breathalyzers are used to test those participants who have received DUI-related charges. Tests are chosen based on the participant drug of choice. For example, participants who are marijuana users are given the oral test. Participants appear in court every 3 weeks (every week for those who are not consistently following program rules). As participants successfully meet program requirements and approach graduation, they may be required to only appear in court every 5 or 6 weeks. Drug court participants see their CCMs weekly until they have 6 consecutive weeks of clean UAs, or longer if it is deemed in their best interest. Following successful completion of this initial period, participants meet with CCMs at least every other week until graduation. Participants continue to appear for random drug testing throughout their participation in the drug court program. PHASE I (6 WEEKS) Requirements: During Phase I, participants are required to complete 6 weeks of drug court without sanctions. Participant who are sanctioned during Phase I may be required to start this phase again from the beginning. Two drug tests per week Attend individualized treatment as outlined in the CCM Plan (a treatment plan that includes goals in substance abuse, employment, educational, financial, family/social, legal, medical/health, and mental health/emotional areas) Contact CCMs as outlined in the CCM Plan An incentive is given to participants who complete Phase I successfully. PHASE II (8 WEEKS) Requirements: During Phase II, participants are required to complete 8 weeks of drug court without sanctions. Participants who are sanctioned during Phase II may be required to start this phase again from the beginning, or may be set back to Phase I. One drug test per week, minimum Attend individualized treatment as outlined in the CCM Plan Contact CCMs as outlined in the CCM Plan Incentives are given to participants who complete Phase II successfully. PHASE III (12 WEEKS) Requirements: During Phase III, participants are required to complete 12 weeks of drug court without sanctions. Participants who are sanctioned during Phase III may be required to start this phase again from the beginning, or may be set back to Phase II. Random urinalysis Continue with individualized treatment goals Progress toward completing CCM Plans Participate in aftercare until graduation requirements are met Complete and submit Graduation Applications 6

15 Incentives and Certificates of Drug Court Graduation are given to program participants upon completion of Phase III. PHASE IV (12 WEEKS) Continuing Care: Although it is not required, most treatment providers will allow drug court participants to return and attend groups at no charge following graduation. Graduates may also call drug court staff if they need help or have questions. Case managers and private treatment providers are involved in the aftercare process. Graduates are asked at their exit interviews or at graduation if they intend to continue involvement in treatment or seek some form of support (e.g., going to support group meetings, stopping by their private provider/clinical care monitor for support, or visiting the Drug Court Coordinator or the judge). Since it is not required by law, the drug court does not follow up to see if participants seek post-program support. Based upon their experience, drug court staff members believe that 26 weeks is not sufficient time to make long-term change among their program participants. As a result, participants generally stay in the program for 12 to 18 months. Requirements: Participants who are sanctioned during Phase IV may be required to start this phase again from the beginning, or may be set back to Phase III. Random urinalysis Other requirements at the court s discretion Requirements to Change Phase Participants may move from one phase to the next when they have met all of the requirements of a particular phase, including maintaining clean UAs and showing acceptable attendance records for appointments (counseling, court dates, etc.). The time spent in each phase varies according to how quickly requirements are completed and how well drug court rules are followed. Treatment Overview When participants attend preliminary inquiry hearings and are informed about drug court, they also see the Court Assessor, who gives them a Rapid Clinical Assessment. This 20- question instrument is used to help determine appropriateness for the program, make treatment recommendations, and refer participants to the Clinical Care Monitoring (CCM) program. All drug court participants must go through the CCM program, which coordinates the services participants receive and provides treatment. Initial court assessments also determine whether participants will be required to attend Narcotics Anonymous (NA) or Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) meetings. In situations where participants are finding it difficult to fit into the 12-step process (typically after participating in a few groups), the drug court program works with participants to find alternative treatment plans (e.g., increasing the number of weekly appointments with treatment providers). When participants report to CCM, initially they receive more thorough (2 hour) assessments. Participants may be referred out for services not offered by the AACADC District, such as Department of Vocation and Rehabilitation programs, Workforce Development programs, social services, etc. They also may be referred to residential treatment. CCMs and private treatment providers are required to report to court staff on participant treatment progress and/or compliance. Information provided includes appointment attendance, drug screen results, and relevant anecdotal information. They also report on whether participants are attending NA or AA meetings and the levels of motivation regarding treatment. A standard report form is used that includes space for notes related to the above-mentioned participant responsibilities. There are about 20 different private providers 7

16 working with the drug court program, and their services range from weekly therapeutic sessions to detoxification services to inpatient treatment. Other Drug Court Services Ancillary services provided by the AACADC District program include jobrelated assistance. This service may include resume preparation training, suggestions regarding job application completion, interview role playing, learning how to dress for interviews, and other suggestions to help participants gain employment. The drug court has also developed relationships with employers in the community who know about the program and are willing to hire participants. As noted above, participants are also referred to community-based programs through the Department of Vocation and Rehabilitation, Workforce Development, social services, and other agencies. Participants may also be referred to other services outside of drug court, such as parenting classes and HIV education. Team Meetings Drug court team meetings take place once per month and last from an hour to an hour and a half. Topics addressed are generally related to AACADC District operation (not individual progress in drug court, which is discussed at the treatment team meeting). Drug court team meeting attendees typically include representatives from the County Health Department, Clinical Case Monitoring, Maryland Parole/Probation, the Maryland Office of the Public Defender, private attorneys, private treatment providers, Anne Arundel County State s Attorney s Office, Anne Arundel County Detention Center, Anne Arundel County Executive s Office, and the Drug Court Judge. The team discusses program problems, ideas, and relevant news related to the AACADC District. In addition, they sometimes invite special guest speakers to discuss a variety of topics. Provider and Team Communication with Court Substance abuse treatment providers share information with the court, such as whether participants have reported for treatment, whether they attend NA or AA meetings, and their motivation level regarding treatment. This information is entered into a standard report form and faxed to the participant CCMs, who then combine the information with their reports and fax them to the AACADC District Coordinator prior to drug court reviews (for all participants being seen on a given day). Case managers and treatment providers report to the court staff on treatment progress and compliance, including drug screen results, attendance at appointments and treatment sessions, and any other information related to drug court participation. Drug Court Reviews AACADC District reviews are held once per week. In any given review session, 20 to 40 participants attend drug court, with approximately 15 individuals included on the morning docket, and another 15 individuals on the afternoon docket. In addition to defendants and the judge, Assistant Public Defenders, the Drug Court Coordinator, Assistant State s Attorneys (if participants need to be sentenced), and (sometimes) treatment providers also attend drug court reviews. For treatment providers, attendance at the drug court reviews happens very rarely. If there are particularly challenging situations involving participants, private treatment providers may be asked to attend court reviews with case managers. Most often, though, the coordinator, case managers, and private treatment providers meet to discuss participants situations and progress. In addition, treatment providers will occasionally send new clinicians to drug court reviews to familiarize them with the program. 8

17 During drug court reviews, depending on the issues being addressed, participants may spend up to half an hour before the judge. Most participants attend drug court every 3 weeks. The Drug Court Team Judge. Judge Dryden, the District Court for Arundel County s Administrative Judge, has presided over the drug court since November He began working with the drug court as a back-up judge for Judge Manck, the first Adult Drug Court Judge in Anne Arundel County. Other judges are available to substitute for Judge Dryden, though this rarely happens. Judge Dryden spends about 15% to 20% of his time on drug court-related activities and the rest on other judicial matters/cases. He spends most of every drug court review day working on AACADC District-related activities. In addition, he is also involved for an hour or two each week conducting preliminary inquiries, wherein participants cases are presented along with their eligibility for programs. Outside of the courtroom, Judge Dryden serves on the Drug Treatment Court Commission for Maryland (DTCC), a body set up by the judicial system to provide guidance for drug court programs statewide. He is the chair of a DTCC subcommittee. To ensure that the program runs smoothly, he also spends time out of court consulting with the Drug Court Coordinator. In his role as Drug Court Judge, Judge Dryden is responsible for giving final approval for drug court entry. Having reviewed reports from treatment and monitoring agencies, he meets with participants at their reviews. At the progress review sessions he makes recommendations regarding appropriate responses to participant performance in the program. According to Judge Dryden, his philosophy is to be supportive and to encourage participants to stay involved in treatment and work on their individual goals. For example, if participants are in school, he talks with them about the courses they are taking. Generally, he tries to get to know participants on a personal level. Drug Court Coordinator. The Drug Court Coordinator is responsible for planning, organizing, coordinating, and monitoring the activities of the drug treatment court and driving under the influence (DUI) treatment court programs. She works with the State s Attorney s Office to determine who is eligible and who is not eligible for AACADC District. Among other duties, she also coordinates all of the reviews, writes and monitors grants, collects data regarding drug court participants, maintains statistics, and manages the drug court budget. In addition, she coordinates and manages all courtroom activities (e.g., graduations, visits from other drug courts) and identifies program resources in the community. Parole and Probation. The role of the Maryland Parole and Probation Division is minimal in this drug court, unless offenders are also on probation (most participants are not), and they are allowed to participate in drug court. Parole and Probation Agents can do home visits to check on participants. Assistant State s Attorney. The role of the Assistant State s Attorney is to represent the prosecutorial interest of the State and the agency interest of the Anne Arundel County State s Attorney s Office regarding the progress of offenders assigned to drug court. At times, the Assistant State s Attorney is involved in the County s drug diversion program (for first time offenders who agree to participate in treatment), in cases where there are other charges besides a qualifying drug charge. The Assistant State s Attorney determines whether there is merit to such charges, and whether participants will be offered the drug diversion program (instead of drug court). If participants are in the AACADC District program, plead guilty to drug court qualifying charges that got them there, and recommendations are for PBJ findings, these charges will not be considered 9

18 convictions. If participants findings are for PBJ on such charges, after 3 years, participants may petition to have the charges expunged and the records sealed (but only if they successfully complete drug court). Currently, the Assistant State s Attorney attends the drug court reviews when participants are sentenced, or if participants have committed new crimes while in the AACADC District program, and decisions have been made to allow them to roll those charges into their drug court program charges. Drug court differs from the traditional ( business as usual ) court process in that public defenders and prosecutors are expected to suspend their adversarial positions. In drug court, the Assistant Public Defender and the Assistant State s Attorney are both interested in assisting individuals who need help with their addictions. This means that counsel for offenders and prosecutors are asked to adopt perspectives that are sometimes more therapeutic than adjudicative. Prior to drug court entry, the State s Attorney s Office completes intense background checks on all potential participants, including a standard Maryland background check and an FBI check (includes entries and charges, but not dispositions), for arrests that may have occurred in other states. Information gathered in these checks is provided to the State Attorney s Office s paralegal assigned to drug court to assist in determining eligibility. Sometimes the paralegal brings record checks to the Assistant State s Attorney for help with deciphering the information (e.g., legal codes), which may assist in determining eligibility. At times, offenders want to enter the drug court program but have pending cases in other counties. With the approval of the Assistant State s Attorney, the Assistant Public Defender or private attorney may approach the judge in Anne Arundel County and indicate a participant s willingness to go through the AACDC program and request assistance from the judge in seeking to move such cases to Anne Arundel County. Such transfers require the cooperation of the court and attorneys in the corresponding counties. Law enforcement. Law enforcement agencies in Anne Arundel County are not involved with the AACADC District, other than their roles in making arrests that may lead to drug court-qualifying charges. Assistant Public Defender. There are five attorneys in the Maryland Office of the Public Defender in Anne Arundel County who rotate monthly for weekly preliminary inquiries. Potential participants with charges that make them eligible for drug court attend these inquiries and are required to state whether they accept entry into drug court or not. Assistant Public Defenders ( APDs ) also attend the weekly drug court reviews. If the lead APD for drug court is unable to attend a session, a substitute APD is assigned for the day. The lead APD is in charge of the Office of the Public Defender in Annapolis, MD. If a private attorney is retained for drug court participants, that individual will take the place of the APD for those cases. The lead APD is also a member of the Offender Substance Abuse Treatment Services (OSATS) group, a subcommittee of the Maryland Criminal Justice Coordinating Council, which meets monthly to discusses drug court challenges and other programrelated issues (funding, hiring staff, changes, etc.) and works on solutions for addressing those problems and issues. In his drug court-related role, the APD reviews case files and, if it does not look as though the State can prove the charges at trial, he will not recommend drug court program participation to defendants. So, the APD maintains a traditional representational position until offenders enter the drug court. While there is generally not an adversarial relationship between the representatives of 10

19 prosecution and defense in drug court, the APD retains the role of legal advocate for participants. There are occasions when the coordinator (or other drug court staff) may request particular sanctions be levied or that participants be terminated from the program. The APD may determine that it is in the best interest of the offender to argue against such actions. House Arrest Counselor (Correctional Program Specialist 2). This position is organizationally located in the Anne Arundel County Detention Center. The House Arrest Counselor s main responsibility is drug monitoring. The House Arrest Counselor performs daily urine testing of AACADC District participants placed into the monitoring program (as a sanction). Participants who are monitored report to the Detention Center every day except Sunday. They provide their monitors with their daily itineraries, approximate time it will take them to go from point A to point B (between appointments), and information about mode of transportation. The monitors generally check up on participants who are working (contacting their places of employment). Participants on house arrest have a 10 p.m. curfew. The House Arrest Counselor also conducts home visits for participants on daily monitoring. Drug screens take place at the Detention Center, located in Glen Burnie, MD, which is approximately 15 minutes from Annapolis. Trained officers screen for drugs on the same day that urine samples are taken. The next day participants are informed whether test results were positive or negative. Drug court is held on Thursday, so UA collections take place Friday through Wednesday for the following court date. On Thursdays, reports are faxed to the judge stating whether or not participants reported for testing and the number of resultant positive UAs. Based on testing results, the judge may recommend continuing monitoring or incarceration for participants. Monitors send participant status reports to court. Sometimes participants are on house arrest and are monitored with ankle bracelets. In such cases, participants are only allowed to leave home in order to report for UAs or to go to work, employment training/support, or court. Paralegal. The paralegal assisting drug court is an employee of the Anne Arundel County State s Attorney s Office. The current paralegal has worked with the drug court since June She does not attend drug court reviews. She receives all of the cases scheduled for preliminary inquiries, and determines whether those persons are eligible for drug court or not. This activity takes 75% to 90% of her time, depending on the size of the docket. On Tuesdays, the day of the preliminary inquiries, she meets with participants to inform them of whether they are eligible for AACADC District, explain the drug court process and procedures, and take them to the Health Assessor (for the rapid clinical assessment). She also assists in preparing the drug court contract, and sends it to the judge. If participants owe restitution (related to their qualifying charges), this information is included in drug court contracts, and the paralegal will be responsible for forwarding restitution payments to parties involved. Program Coordinator, Clinical Care Monitoring Program. The Program Coordinator for the Clinical Care Monitoring Program provides primary management and coordination of treatment and rehabilitation services. In addition to supervising the three Clinical Care Monitors (case managers) who work with drug court participants, the Program Coordinator also carries a caseload of drug court participants. (See Treatment Overview for additional information about the CCM program.) Drug Court Team Training Members of the AACADC District team have attended various drug court trainings, conferences, and workshops. In 2000, the 11

20 entire team attended an international drug court conference in San Francisco. The team also attended a national drug court conference in CCMs frequently attend workshops, and the County Health Department provides trainings for them as well. Case managers have also been trained to give drug tests. Treatment Costs There is no fee to participate in the AACADC District program, but participants are asked to pay for treatment services, if they can afford it. For indigent participants there is a sliding fee arrangement, and supplementary funds are provided by the State of Maryland. For these participants, there still may be a $5 co-pay requirement. A small number of people pay through insurance. For participants with transportation challenges, vouchers are provided (from a fund through the State Drug Treatment Court Commission and the Maryland Highway Safety Association) for a cab or a bus. Participants do not pay the CCMs who give them the UA tests, nor for the tests themselves. If private providers perform UAs, there may be fees charged to participants. Treatment providers are required to perform UAs twice per week for participants who are in Phase I of the program. Anne Arundel County pays for all services at or related to the Detention Center (e.g., house arrests). Drug Testing The County Health Department, treatment providers, and the County Detention Center (if the participant is in the daily monitoring program as a sanction) are responsible for drug testing. Sometimes it is a random test (e.g., when they see their CCM), and at other times participants expect to be drug tested (e.g., when they see their House Arrest Counselor when on daily monitoring). Often, for those who are further along in the program (i.e., in higher Phases), there are pure randoms for which participants are called and given 24 hours notice to appear for a UA. If participants say that they cannot report for 2 to 3 days to take a test, then program staff members generally suspect that the participants are not abstaining from use. Such incidents will be addressed in court, and offending participants most frequently are sanctioned for delaying tests. When participants appear to report for court reviews, they are also drug tested. Tests that are used include: Rapid urine drug screen (results available in 5 minutes), which assesses for a variety of substances (cocaine, heroin, etc.), including Oxycontin Oral tests (for the above-mentioned substances, including marijuana), which are sent to the lab, with results available in 48 hours Breathalyzers, on all participants (regardless of presenting charge) when they see their case managers each week Full urine drug screen (for an even larger number of substances, including drug levels), which go out to a lab to be processed UAs are observed by House Arrest Counselors or other staff members in the Anne Arundel County Detention Center office. Male staff members observe male participants and female staff members observe female participants. Rewards and Sanctions REWARDS The AACADC District rewards good behavior. Examples of good behavior include consistently keeping appointments with case managers, negative UAs, doing what is requested by drug court staff (including paying restitution, if ordered), and engaging in no new criminal activity. Rewards may include a 6-months-clean certificate, gifts, extending periods of time between court appearances, 12